Well we all know how quickly you run out of Map when you are looking
for Higher Degree location data in Forex.

Just isn't sufficient history. There isn't much you can do about it.

Over 30 years and all that seems to be there is a partial correction.
That's not much help.

But...

This Cable chart has something which is crucial. I never noticed it
before. If you don't have enough history you can use the NEWR to help
by using differentiation.

This is the Benchmark for Cable and it shows in the inset the area
which aided the construction of this viewport. My feeling is that it
starts with a [B] wave. That starting point is labeled as [B] or [4]
because that could be either one.

As a matter of fact this entire labeling may be incorrect due to the
insufficient data. It is not possible to be 100%.

However, once locating the Motive Differentiation everything conformed
to the NEWR 100% in both directions as near as humanly possible to be sure.

Admittedly this is Weekly data but the scale is so large that there was
only one wave where 1 & 2 were hidden and that was an obvious fast
drop off anyway. Daily data was available from mid-1997.

Thanks, That is so useful and so interesting. I was seeing cable needed to print above 1.7030 before falling to new lows due to the initial fall following your label (b) being 3 waves (and presumed wave a of a flat/triangle) . I had reasoned by extension that dollar index gains were likely to be limited till after such a price was reached providing currency correlations did not change too markedly.

P.S Are inter-market correlations also thrown on the scrapheap when arriving at a count?

(01-27-2010 04:03 AM)Steely Dan Wrote: Thanks, That is so useful and so interesting. I was seeing cable needed to print above 1.7030 before falling to new lows due to the initial fall following your label (b) being 3 waves (and presumed wave a of a flat/triangle) . I had reasoned by extension that dollar index gains were likely to be limited till after such a price was reached providing currency correlations did not change too markedly.

P.S Are inter-market correlations also thrown on the scrapheap when arriving at a count?

You're welcome.

Inter-market correlations being part of sentiment makes them bone
joints, ligaments, muscle and nerves. While inseparable, they all have
their own properties.

Each chart prints out its own story and so while drawing interpretations
which are at times useful they can lead you astray just as easily.

Take them to mind but use them for ideas and perhaps last resort if you
must - like to bolster a lack of history situation.

Like the GBP/JPY print being similar to the GBP/USD. Can we still use it?
I feel better about it than before. I certainly understand the GBP/JPY
better now. But they are definitely each taking their own path.

Inverse correlations fall in the same category. You can trust them until
you can't.

This GU example is fantastic for study, so Thanks! More like this will be very helpful and much appreciated.

I haven't struggled through labelling any chart on my own yet. I'm sure when I do it will become much more clear to me. But first, I want to understand your example here as best I can.

As you said, you don't have all the data detail so your count is just an estimate. (One that took a LOT of time for such detail; Wow!). Similarly, I'm looking at the chart without the benefit of drilling down for data details, but I'm hoping you can clarify a few details for me. My questions are just to educate me as I prepare to do some charts of my own.

I attached some pictures with questions.

P.S. I figured out stamps in SnagIt by dropping them into: C:\Program Files\TechSmith\SnagIt 9\Stamps
I restarted SnagIt and clicking on the stamp icon works great. However, is there a way to change the color of the stamps? I would have preferred to do mine in some other color than yours to distinguish them.

2. Wave circle-i (1985) had labels (1) and (2) very early in the swing. There's a big unlabelled swing in the middle. Can you please illuminate why (1) and (2) go where they go? I also did some (i)-(v) with an rt"B" but... I think it's wrong, correct? This is a wave (3) so it shouldn't have an rtb.

3. Around 2006 and 2009, you put wave-1 labels in a place that surprised me. Did you do so because of the daily data that told you this is where they go, or is there some other detail I'm missing? From the weekly perspective, they just look like 3-wave moves, and are unlike any other wave-1's labeled on your chart.

Just trying to understand as best I can... thanks in advance for your answers.

This GU example is fantastic for study, so Thanks! More like this will be very helpful and much appreciated.

I haven't struggled through labelling any chart on my own yet. I'm sure when I do it will become much more clear to me. But first, I want to understand your example here as best I can.

As you said, you don't have all the data detail so your count is just an estimate. (One that took a LOT of time for such detail; Wow!).

It did take a long time. Most was checking details that are present.

So we can have a good wave count benchmark to rely upon, I did do
the checks, not just draw lines for what looked good. This is an unusual
thing to have for forex so it was not only worth the time to get this
count, it became a mission to make it so detailed as a teaching example.

There is not an absolute way to know in some instances without Daily or
smaller detail but as I stated the shear scale here has created some
remarkable depth of information regardless of those obstacles. When I
spotted that differentiation it encouraged full exploration of all available
detail. It surprised me that there was more there than I thought.

While the labeling of this 30 year stretch of a wave pattern has no
completed higher degree, The NEWR differentiation combined with
such strict adherence in both directions makes this a VERY strong
case for the labeling.

Quote:Similarly, I'm looking at the chart without the benefit of drilling down for data details, but I'm hoping you can clarify a few details for me. My questions are just to educate me as I prepare to do some charts of my own.

I attached some pictures with questions.

P.S. I figured out stamps in SnagIt by dropping them into: C:\Program Files\TechSmith\SnagIt 9\Stamps
I restarted SnagIt and clicking on the stamp icon works great. However, is there a way to change the color of the stamps? I would have preferred to do mine in some other color than yours to distinguish them.

While the stamps would need to be redone from scratch to change their
color, a handy way to do the 'yours' / 'mine' would be to use the
highlighter tool which is very quickly applied.

Quote:2. Wave circle-i (1985) had labels (1) and (2) very early in the swing. There's a big unlabelled swing in the middle. Can you please illuminate why (1) and (2) go where they go? I also did some (i)-(v) with an rt"B" but... I think it's wrong, correct? This is a wave (3) so it shouldn't have an rtb.

This is from 3 things combined. The wave sizes rule, the normal breaking
of the wave-1-start-to-wave-2 trendline by wave 4, and the ruling out
of moving wave (3) up to accomodate the size rule because:
1) this made that trendline (shown in example as red) leave top of (3) breaking below it (violet line is what is normal)
2) this made wave 5's RTB-4th's lack the usual visible C's (this higher (3)
case would have had 2 to likely 3 visible instead of 3 to likely 4 which is
good for weekly).

So it really was the best case for this wave.

Quote:3. Around 2006 and 2009, you put wave-1 labels in a place that surprised me. Did you do so because of the daily data that told you this is where they go, or is there some other detail I'm missing? From the weekly perspective, they just look like 3-wave moves, and are unlike any other wave-1's labeled on your chart.

The tendency is mentioned in the book about labelling something as a
three without the actual detail to show it for what it really is. This was
not a casual mention or coincidence.

It is at the very heart of how taking it as it first appears at face value
and settling upon that assessment keeps us from the real wave
formation.

The shortcut is part of it. The lack of detail is part of it. The part that
makes it persist even in the face of clear cut evidence that the counts
either lead you to an unknown location or flat out bust your trades is the
'rule?' that 4th waves do not overlap 1st waves.

If you carefully watch you will begin to wonder how that remains or else
the waves just do not make any sense. Really, only by concocting
strange wave shapes that can just appear without predictability and add
themselves together can this shape-shifting continue - or else you have
to just admit... 4 can and does overlap 1.

I come from the other side of the New Rule and am here to tell you that
this is true and it makes your waves form up with reliable and
predictable precision.

This example shows the very end of the daily limit. Right after the 2nd
wave here, 4 Hour data is available. Yet still you can see how a wave
looks.

Now the next one you asked the same question about is the same
situation. This time I have plenty of detail in the 4 Hour data.

Quote:Just trying to understand as best I can... thanks in advance for your answers.

Here is my attempt at a continuation of Tom's chart. a level above 1.63 will eliminate one alternative and for me be highly suggestive of a move up fairly rapidly to take out the 1.7030 level (blue line).

At the risk of making an unwarranted cross market assumption I would suggest that perhaps the U.S stocks won't peak until the dollar starts to strengthen and a good barometer of this may be the cable count. If so Cable needs to put a spurt on as the Russell index is within 21 points of taking out it's 2007 high.

Only one thing which I would like you to look at is the red 4C
in finer detail.

I think perhaps our red 4C is not done and would love to indulge a
head and shoulders formation.

(i.e. the green section is the c of the rtb 4 of red C)

-------------------

Funny story:

When I first began spreading the word about NEWR I went over to
the EW section at Dailyfx. I started talking about this event we
are now discussing the near possibility of happening, taking out
1.70 prior to what everyone else was certain would happen first,
that being sub 1.35.

That was in February 2010.

Of course they received immediate gratification to confirm that I
was quite mad when I very prematurely spoke of not being so
bearish. They were thinking in terms of 4 Hours to Daily and I
was inappropriately speaking out of turn about an event which
was due on the Weekly or Monthly chart.

I was a bit too enthusiastic about sharing and didn't do NEWR's
reputation any favors with that one.

Tom, Thanks for your timely reminder. The 1.63 level I spoke of is of course the key level to confirm red 4C is infact over. Actually it would possibly fit with a small outbreak of dollar strength coincided with stock indexes relieving their overbought extremes. Incidentally if emerging markets are the leading 'risk on' trade then India's recent decline does bear watching. Incidentally if I were to take a view here and now that red 4c is not over then the risk:reward multiple is 18 or thereabouts and it looks a better bet than that in my book.

(02-18-2011 09:51 PM)Steely Dan Wrote: Here is my attempt at a continuation of Tom's chart. a level above 1.63 will eliminate one alternative and for me be highly suggestive of a move up fairly rapidly to take out the 1.7030 level (blue line).

At the risk of making an unwarranted cross market assumption I would suggest that perhaps the U.S stocks won't peak until the dollar starts to strengthen and a good barometer of this may be the cable count. If so Cable needs to put a spurt on as the Russell index is within 21 points of taking out it's 2007 high.

Steely,

I'd go back a step further and question the move you have as the blue C4.

On all my wave speed / momentum systems, it is coming out as uncompleted pattern - it's the last part that doesn't seem to fit, too much oomph to be a 5th of 5.

In fact, in terms of being a completed five, it has a 0% rating BUT this is a new toy I'm using and I could be misusing it or misreading the output.

[Added as edit, to hopefully explain why it's a 0% rating.

The first move down has the standard 3rd 5th divergence on the WAO, shown in orange - just fancied using orange....

Then it starts to get interesting.

The next three dips on the WAO cannot be 1st, 3rd and 5th because the 5th is the deepest - hence no divergence.

IF there had been that lower Low on Price then the WAO 5 (crossed out) on the Apr line would have been the divergence to show the wave was over BUT the lower Low on Price didn't appear until much later and with too much ooomph.

So maybe the 3rd is OK but the last cannot be a 5th, so must be something else e.g. a of RTB or complete RTB.

Maybe the 3rd isn't a 3rd at all and is the next subwave 1st, so the dip after that is the 3rd subwave with a shallower one to follow for the 5th subwave. End of edit.]

Working at the Daily level is not my scene but it maybe is worth going back and looking at start of Mar 10 to Mid Apr 10 (three of five?) and Mid Apr 10 to Mid May 10 (three or five?).

three five - 2nd & 3rd following an EWT "extended 1st", all of which followed a nice 1 2?
five five - A followed by a of RTB?
five three - A followed by completed RTB?

Theory Thanks for that, I do like the name of the oscillator. I think I may be guilty of making an assumption that the 1.70+ rally high which Tom's count predicts would coincide with a high in the major stock indexes. I was revisiting cable to see if this had influenced my counting.

A quick question on the Oscillator - I take it that it is designed to differentiate between third and fifth waves, if so can it be applied to new-R in the same manner seeing as the variability of an RTB wave may make it resemble a third wave in some situations and a fifth in others so there may be a danger of mistaking an RTB for a third or indeed a fifth wave.